Talk:Holodomor genocide question/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Déjà Vu

Erm ... I think this reminds me of something? Anyone else got that feeling of déjà vu? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that page is about denial of the event. This is about the genocide debate. Ostap 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as such massive violations of WP:SYN, both pages are about what the contributors decide to put in it. Just remove the OR "Holodomor genocide denialism should not be confused with Holodomor denial, which is the statement that the Holodomor never took place." and the distinction is gone.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Reworked structure of article for balance - need referenced material for the section Holodomor is not genocide. Please refer to the Genocide definition article for 22 scholarly and legal definitions of genocide. Depending of definition can change the label of "Genocide" or "Not Genocide" - Removing POV tags. Bobanni (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Construction

This article is just in the process of construction. Balanced POV will be presented and neutral language (as defined by Wikipedia policy) will be used. Remember that is a very controversial subject outside of Wikipedia and this article will reflect the controversy. Feel free to edit, but wait until the under construction tag is cleared before debating the article. Bobanni (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

Whoever put the POV Tag please explain which Point of View is missing from this article. Bobanni (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Israeli/Jewish position

This section is off topic (talking about the Armenian genocide?) That should probably be removed. If Peres made similar statements about Holodomor, it should be cited. Ostap 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV Flag

No one came forward to explain what Point of View was missed Bobanni (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research or Unverified Claims

Whoever put the Original Research or Unverified Claims please identify what is not verified or original research so those issues can be addressed. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for POV-title removal

POV-title tag added to article multiple times - no clear explaination why the current title does not have a neutral point of view. Rather than getting into a cycle of adding and reverting the issue should be dealt with by consensus. Can anyone explain the rationale why this was added? Thanks Bobanni (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is a POV tile, what title Irpen suggests? I would suggest to rename this article as "Holodomor genocide controversy" (see above).Biophys (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Any title that suggests that Holodomor is a genocide and suggests to study this "question" or "controversy" would be a POV title. "Holodomor Genocide anything" would all have this flaw thus imposing a particular POV, which is far from the mainstream consensus, over the whole article. --Irpen 05:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you tell that title is "POV" but do not suggest an alternative title. Then you should stop inserting this label and do something else.Biophys (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how one follows from the other. I do explain the current title's inadequacy. --Irpen 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest renaming to Political treatment of the Holodomor or something similar. This article's twin Synthy brother could be merged into it too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be reasonable to merge this article into Holodomor denial and change the lead accordingly: "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine claiming millions of lives, did not occur, or denial that Holodomor was an act of genocide, or attempts to minimize the scale or death toll, or claims that famine has not been intentionally created by the Soviet authorities". Then it would cover everything. But no one supported that.Biophys (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death at the other article's talk.

"Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine claiming millions of lives, did not occur"

is and outright OR. Not a single source supports such definition. That's why it is marked dubious. The sources that speak about some sort of "denial" wrt to Holodomor are mostly political and they mostly indeed speak about the Genocide applicability. The claim that the famine did not happen is a fringe POV that has not become a subject of any research. The other article is a hodge-podge of randomly picked statements from disparate sources. At the same time, this article is nothing but a POV fork of the section of the Holodomor. Politicization of the famine (of which the Genocide debate is indeed a part) is an all right topic. I believe it should be covered in detail in the main article. But if a separate article is to exist, it should cover all aspects of such politicization rather than invent "denials" or POV-push for a Genocide. --Irpen 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest to merge both articles? What do you suggest? If we merge them, this will not be ORish and the problem will be fixed.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2008

(UTC)

From French Wikipeadia's Holodomor Discussion page

From French Wikipedia’s Discussion Page for Holodomor (unfortunately there is not a list for those who do not agree)

Those scholars who agree that Holodomor is Genocide

• Nicolas Werth (France)
• Yves Ternon (France)
• James Mace (U.S.)
• Robert Conquest (U.S.)
• Andrew Gregorovich (Canada)
• Yaroslav Bilinsky (U.S.)
• Roman Serbyn (Canada)
• Gerhard Simon (Germany)
• Andrea Graziosi (Italy)
• Ferdinando Adornato (Italy)
• Leo Kuper (U.S.)
• Federigo Argentieri (Italy)
• Ettore Cinnella (Italy)
• Michael Marrus (Canada)
• Massimo De Angelis (Italy)
• Gabriele De Rosa (Italy)
• Renzo Foa (Italy)
• Mauro Martini (Italy)
• Vittorio Strada (Italy)
• Victor Zaslavski (Russia)
• Stephane Courtois (France)
• Alain Besancon (France)
• Thévenin Etienne (France)
• Egbert Jahn (Germany)
• Health Graciotti (Italy)
• Francesco Perfetti (Italy)
• Lucio Villari (Italy)
• Johan Ōman (Sweden)
• Orest Subtelny (Canada)
• Hubert Laszkiewicz (Poland)
• Jan Jacek Bruski (Poland)
• Ewa Rybalt (Poland)
• Simona Merlo (Italy)
• Maria Pia Pagani (Italy)
• Giorgio Petracchi (Italy)
• Francesco Guida (Italy)
• Fulvio Salimbeni (Italy)

the Portuguese your friend LuismatosRibeiro on December 7, 2006 at 00:47 (CET) (translated by Bobanni & Google) Bobanni (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Hello,

This article is about denying that the Holodomor was Genocide. People do.

If some editors would like to start an article discussing how the Holodomor was not a Genocide, they are free to do so.

However, there are enough sources - Ukrainian, English, Canadian, and American, to warrant an article about the idea that some people deny that the Holodomor as Genocide is denied. There are over 20 countries that have acknowledged the Holodomor as Genocide, and now in Ukraine there is a bill which would make denying the Holodomor as Genocide illegal, on par with denying the Holocaust.

That is not POV, it is fact. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

People denying something does not make the "denial" an encyclopedic subject. It may only if the "denial" is the subject of shcolarly research, just like the Holocaust denial, a subject related but separate from the Holocaust itself. There are dissertations, conferences and books on the Holocaust denial. There is none of this on the Holodomor Denial. Holodomor is a valid topic and there is much of the valid research for that. "Denial" is your artificial pet-topic. --Irpen 07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, what you think is happenning and what is happenning ara two different things. Please refrain from making statements such as "there is none of this on the Holodomor Denial" because they are both factually and grammatically incorrect. Perhaps denying is your pet-topic. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging articles needs explanation in TALK section for honest discussion

Seven million figure comes from reference at end of paragraph. .Bobanni (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Moscow Times is not a scholarly source to use its numbers passingly the same way as one would use numbers from the peer-reviewed paper written by world top demographers. All sorts of numbers cited by politicians and journalists can be used to demonstrate the politicization debate but they cannot be used in a passing form as factual info. --Irpen 05:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Times is considered a reliable source. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Restricting to only scholary source can generate a BIAS point of view. Remember that the academic world ignored this subject for fifty years. Only others including News Organization followed this issue. Bobanni (talk)

Concept of Coatracking template does not exist

This label has been applied to a template incorrectly- however no case has been made on template talk page. No such concept existsBobanni (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Hello, the reason that this article was originally called "Holodomor-Genocide Denial" is that it is about the phenomenon in which people deny that the Holodomor was genocide.

This article does not mean to question whether the Holodomor was Genocide, just as the Holocaust Denial article does not mean to question that the Holocaust was genocide. It simply states that there is an effort by some to say that the Holodomor was not Genocide, and - believe it or not - that is happenning.

That is not POV, nor OR, that is fact. Please read the lead of the article to make sure that you know what this is about. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a scholarly topic in its own right which is the subject of academic works and University dissertations (all specifically devoted to a narrower issue of denial, rather than the Holocaust itself.) This, rather than the mere fact that some people deny the Holocaust, makes the Holocaust denial a valid article topic. So is the Holocaust. So is the Holodomor. That something exists, some people not viewing the famine as Genocide, does not make it an article subject by itself. Neither is Holodomor denial a valid topic for the very similar reasons. They are both marked as such. --Irpen 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, you are misunderstanding the idea of Wikipedia. Perhaps it is a language issue. Please understand that while WP is not a mere collection of information, Holodomor denial is being studied at Universities, being discussed in Parliaments/Congresses around the world, and is being written about by scholars around the English speaking, and I imagine the Ukraininan speaking world.

Perhaps you should become more familiar with the topic in English before so arrogantly brushing off and tagging - without an explanation - a topic which had such an impact on world history. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should then quote sources specifically devoted to the denial and base the article on such sources. As of now, the article is based on sources devoted to famine itself and quotes some that did indeed refuse to acknowledge the famine. But there are no sources dedicated to the denial phenomenon that I could found. Thanks for your caring about my English. I appreciate that. --Irpen 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the only reason I mention your English is that you seem to make so many mistakes in it, yet you try to edit with authority. If you want people to take you seriously, don't make simple grammar mistakes. Everybody makes typos, everybody types wrong things in the heat of discussion. However, if somebody consistently makes mistakes with prepositions or articles, count and non-count nouns, and then adds tags to articles without discussion on the talk page, the language issue will rear its ugly head. Please take care and discuss first. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to Remove OSCE from lead

Hello,

The OSCE is but one international organization. There is no need to mention it in the lead.

Please discuss

Horlo (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Still POV

I have changed the lead according to the consensus title. The article is still very biased representing arguments of only a one side Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two sections at the Holodomor article "Was the Holodomor genocide?" and "Politicization of Holodomor" that I think can be shortened there and added here. What do you say? Ostap 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this fork. Holodomor is a serious article where many editors invested a huge effort, a product of discussions and compromise. This one is a POV-pushing toy created by a notorious user. The disagreement of the applicability of Genocide for these events is very crucial part of the main article where it is presented and should be presented. I tried to clean this one up from some most notorious errors but the POV fork is not and cannot be neutral. --Irpen 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Those two sections are getting long. Ostap 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Alex, could you please show where there was consensus for your changing the title? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Syn, OR and POV-title

To give you an example, the main sources of the Holocaust denial article should be neither the works whose subject is the Holocaust nor the works of denialists who claim that the Holocaust did not happen. The sources should be devoted to the Holocaust denial itself, which is a perfectly academic and well researched topic in its own right.

The Holodomor-article, of which I happen to be the most active editor, lists several reviews of the topic on whether the Genocide definition applies to this famine. Such reviews about the applicability of the term rather the sources that take either side should be used in the article whose sole content is the applicability of the term. Instead, the article is primarily based on sources that take either of the positions and synthesizes them into some sort of a "review" whose only claim to legitimacy is its being written by a pseudonymous WP editor, not a scholar with verified credentials.

Further, the article includes plenty of links to outright POV web-sites as sources.

Further, the title is POVed or sloppy in the least. It just does not make any sense. Whether the Holodomor was a Genocide or not is one of the most crucial aspects of its modern historiography and it is discussed in detail in the main article. What we have here is an attempt to fork that discussion under a spurious title to push a particular POV. --Irpen 04:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments cover a lot of issues - however you have not explained what is wrong about the title relating to its point of view. Deleting tag. If you choose to reapply tag please explain your rational in specific terms. Assertion that this is a bad article advanced by POV-pushers does not help advance this article. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments cover all issues and they are sufficiently detailed. You cannot demand more answers until you happen to like them. --Irpen 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Irpen, if the person to whom you are addressing your answer is still confused then no, your answers are not sufficiently detailed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lemkin and the Ukrainian genocide

Here is some instersting material about to be published re the Genocide in Ukraine question.

Raphael Lemkin’s perception of the Ukrainian genocide is a solid recommendation to the UN Assembly to finally recognize the Ukrainian tragedy for what it was - 'a case of genocide, the destruction of a nation.

Below are excerpts from "Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine", the last chapter of a monumental History of Genocide, written in the 1950's by the Jewish-Polish scholar Raphael Lemkin. The monograph has not yet been published and the chapter on Ukraine is known only to a few Lemkin scholars. The whole chapter (12 double-spaced pages) on Ukraine will soon be published this year in the original English language in the USA.

Lemkin’s text deserves special attention by the Ukrainian community as it commemorates the 75th anniversary of the tragic events. It should be noted that Lemkin, developed the concept and coined the term “genocide”, applies it to the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and not just Ukrainian peasants. Lemkin speaks of: a) the decimation of the Ukrainian national elites, b) destruction of the Orthodox Church, c) the starvation of the Ukrainian farming population, and d) its replacement with non-Ukrainian population from the RSFSR as integral components of the same genocidal process. The only dimension that is missing in Lemkin’s excellent analysis is the destruction of the 8,000,000 ethnic Ukrainians living on the eve of the genocide in the Russian Republic (RSFSR).

As Ukraine and the Ukrainian diaspora commemorates, in the coming months of October and November the 75th anniversary of the Genocide against the Ukrainians, it should be inspired by the all-encompassing approach to the analysis of the great Ukrainian catastrophe by the father of the concept of genocide and the man who did most to have it enshrined in the UN Convention of 1948. Lemkin’s perception of the Ukrainian genocide is a solid recommendation to the UN Assembly to finally recognize the Ukrainian tragedy for what it was — “a case of genocide, the destruction of a nation.”

RAFAEL LEMKIN

SOVIET GENOCIDE IN UKRAINE (excerpts) […] What I want to speak about is perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification – the destruction of the Ukrainian nation. […]

[…] As long as Ukraine retains its national unity, as long as its people continue to think of themselves as Ukrainians and to seek independence, so long Ukraine poses a serious threat to the very heart of Sovietism. It is no wonder that the Communist leaders have attached the greatest importance to the Russification of this independent[-minded] member of their “Union of Republics,” have determined to remake it to fit their pattern of one Russian nation. For the Ukrainian is not and has never been, a Russian. His culture, his temperament, his language, his religion – all are different. […]

Ukraine is highly susceptible to racial murder by select parts and so the Communist tactics there have not followed the pattern taken by the German attacks against the Jews. The nation is too populous to be exterminated completely with any efficiency. However, its leadership, religious, intellectual, political, its select and determining parts, are quite small and therefore easily eliminated, and so it is upon these groups particularly that the full force of the Soviet axe has fallen, with its familiar tools of mass murder, deportation and forced labor, exile and starvation.

The attack has manifested a systematic pattern, with the whole process repeated again and again to meet fresh outburst of national spirit. The first blow is aimed at the intelligentsia, the national brain, so as to paralyze the rest of the body. […]

Going along with this attack on the intelligentsia was an offensive against the churches, priests and hierarchy, the “soul” of Ukraine. Between 1926 and 1932, the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, its Metropolitan (Lypkivsky) and 10,000 clergy were liquidated. […] […]

The third prong of the Soviet plan was aimed at the farmers, the large mass of independent peasants who are the repository of the tradition, folk lore and music, the national language and literature, the national spirit, of Ukraine. The weapon used against this body is perhaps the most terrible of all – starvation. Between 1932 and 1933, 5,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death, an inhumanity which the 73rd Congress decried on May 28, 1934. There has been an attempt to dismiss this highpoint of Soviet cruelty as an economic policy connected with the collectivization of the wheatlands, and the elimination of the kulaks, the independent farmers was therefore necessary. The fact is, however, that large-scale farmers in Ukraine were few and far-between. As a Soviet writer Kossior [error: Kosior was party boss of Ukraine – R.S.] declared in Izvestiia on December 2, 1933, “Ukrainian nationalism is our chief danger,” and it was to eliminate that nationalism, to establish the horrifying uniformity of the Soviet state that the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed. The method used in this part of the plan was not at all restricted to any particular group. All suffered – men, women, children. The crop that year was ample to feed the people and livestock of Ukraine, though it had fallen off somewhat from the previous year, a decrease probably due in large measure to the struggle over collectivization. But a famine was necessary for the Soviet[s] and so they got one to order, by plan, through an unusually high grain allotment to the state as taxes. To add to this, thousands of acres of wheat were never harvested, were left to rot in the fields. The rest was sent to government granaries to be stored there until the authorities had decided how to allocate it. Much of this crop, so vital to the lives of the Ukrainian people, ended up as exports for the creation of credits abroad.

In the face of famine on the farms, thousands abandoned the rural areas and moved into the towns to beg [for] food. Caught there and sent back to the country, they abandoned their children in the hope that they at least might survive. In this way, 18,000 children were abandoned in Kharkiv alone. Villages of a thousand had a surviving population of a hundred; in others, half the populace was gone, and deaths in these towns ranged from 20 to 30 per day. Cannibalism became commonplace. […]

The fourth step in the process consisted in the fragmentation of the Ukrainian people at once by the addition to the Ukraine of foreign peoples and by the dispersion of the Ukrainians throughout Eastern Europe. In this way, ethnic unity would be destroyed and nationalities mixed. […]

These have been the chief steps in the systematic destruction of the Ukrainian nation. Notably, there have been no attempts at complete annihilation, such as was the method of the German attack on the Jews. And yet, if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priests and the peasants can be eliminated, Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation rather than a mass of people.

The mass, indiscriminate murders have not, however, been lacking – they have simply not been integral parts of the plan, but only chance variations. Thousands have been executed, untold thousands have disappeared into the certain death of Siberian labor camps. […]

[…] This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation. […] Soviet national unity is being created, not by any union of ideas and of cultures, but by the complete destruction of all cultures and of all ideas save one – the Soviet.

Bandurist (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Numerous problems with "Genocide debate: other countries and international organizations" section.

Aforementioned section contains numerous problems. 1. "Genocide debate" are revolving around issue "whether the Holodomor, the disastrous famine in 1933 that claimed millions of lives in Ukraine, was an ethnic genocide, a natural catastrophe or democide" (as per article's lead), aren't they? Therefore, list of international organizations and countries should clearly distinguish between ones which recognize Holodomor as genocide and ones which commemorate victims of famine (man-made or not is outside of discussion's scope, not every evil deed of human or regime is genocide). It all should be sufficiently sourced.
2. Same problem with list of countries. Some of them recognize famine, some genocide, but they all lumped together under misleading "genocide" header. I kinda sorta started to clear this mess by removing links to Canadian and American statements commemorating victims of famine (it does not change position of those countries, as both adopted separate documents defining Holodomor as genocide). However, it does not even touch the surface of the problem, as random check of Chilean and Spanish links revealed that both countries commemorated victims of famine (one doesn't need to learn Spanish to check, just search for "genocidio" in text). Therefore list should be either expanded (to include Russia, at very least, which commemorated victims of famine) or shortened to include only contries which recognize Holodomor as genocide, or split.
3. Sourcing. Is it too much to ask for links to governmental archives, not password-protected Ukrainian sites, as in case of Slovakia or many Latin American countries?
4. What does "official recognition" mean? For example, all working (and, as per (3), password-protected Ukrinform is hardly WP:RS for official opinion of parliament) links for Argentina are talking about project of private member's bill, and none mention approval of this bill. Private members come up with proposals all the time in any working assembly, but by far not all of them are adopted.
Please share your opinion. Asks questions (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess 12 days had been enough for all interested parties to share their opinions. Asks questions (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Patriarchy and Genocide

Just recently the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy announced that The Holodomor was a Genocide see: here and link here. How do we include this info without setting off another revert war with the Holodomor Deniers? Bandurist (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SYN tag removed

SYN tag removed - no discussion. Bobanni (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Table removal

I've just removed the table that presented the 1939 census numbers. Reasons for doing that are the same as in the main Holodomor article. See the talk page there.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to include alternative sourced data.Biophys (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The same table has been removed from the Holodomor article because it is incorrect (per consensus). Please, take a time to read the discussion there.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Politization of Holodomor.

It had been widely held belief in Russia that the push for the designation of genocide has more to do with demonizing modern-day Russia in the West than any desire for historical justice (Aftermath of a Soviet Famine). Recent publication lend support to this idea. However, it comes from the most unlikely source: an article by Alexander Podrabinek published in Daily Journal, which is as loyal to modern Russian authorities as Florida Cubans are to Castro regime. It reads

"Только президенту Ющенко и Верховной Раде Украины есть дело до восстановления исторической ясности. И они упорно привлекают к этому общественное внимание всего мира, квалифицируя голодомор как геноцид и прозрачно намекая этим на ответственность Кремля"

Translation:

"Only President Yushchenko and Verhovna Rada care about clarifying history. They are doggedly attracting world's attention to it by calling Holodomor 'a genocide' and transparently hinting on (modern) Kremlin's responsibility by doing that."

Given Podrabinek's unblemished record in challenging modern Russian authorities, this is pretty significant statement. Should we put it into the article? Asks questions (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

To the contrary, this article by Podrabinek tells: (a) yes, that was an act of genocide; (b) if that was an act of genocide, why only Ukraine, unlike some other other former Soviet republics and Russia, recognized it as a genocide?; (c) Ukraine did this because she broke with the Soviet past, and therefore she does care about old Soviet myths.

For example, Почему из всех бывших советских республик, пострадавших от голода 1931-1933 годов, только Украина поднимает вопрос о признании голодомора преступлением против человечества, вопрос риторический. Ответ очевиден: Украина порвала со своим советским прошлым и не старается сберечь коммунистические мифы и оправдания. Ориентированная на демократию страна называет вещи своими именами. Она не считает себя преемником СССР и открещивается от советских преступлений. Это не ее, Украины, забота, сберегать имидж Советского Союза и его вождей.

Оказалось — это забота России... Biophys (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Biophys, would you be able to restrain yourself from editing my comments in the future, I will be really grateful. Thank you in advance. Asks questions (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's no real contradiction or misrepresentation of source on my side. 1st, Podrabinek tries to avoid using the word, your excerpt reads "famine" and "crime against humanity" (one more little white lie on your side, but I'm not really amused, neither I consider this "a honest mistake" of yours). 2nd, there are several ideas in his article, one of which is "Ukraine breaking with Soviet past", another "Ukrainian authorities hinting on modern Kremlin's responsibility". Several separate ideas, which can be analyzed separately, is it understood? No need to pick on "politically profitable" ones and demonize all others as sacrilegious. Asks questions (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Podrabinek writes:Международная Конвенция о предупреждении преступлений геноцида и наказании за него определяет геноцид как «действия, совершаемые с намерением уничтожить, полностью или частично, какую-либо национальную, этническую, расовую или религиозную группу как таковую». Миллионы жителей украинской деревни, пострадавших от искусственно созданного в 30-х годах голода, с формальной точки зрения не могут быть признаны жертвами геноцида. Просто потому, что это — социальная группа, а не национальная, этническая, расовая или религиозная. Хотя само это преступление можно квалифицировать как преступление против человечества...Только президенту Ющенко и Верховной Раде Украины есть дело до восстановления исторической ясности. И они упорно привлекают к этому общественное внимание всего мира, квалифицируя голодомор как геноцид и прозрачно намекая этим на ответственность Кремля, объявившего Россию преемником СССР...Вот и получается, что только на Украине голодомор признан преступлением против человечества, а в остальном бывшем СССР — то ли трагическими страницами истории, то ли техническими ошибками «эффективного менеджера». Basically his point is that while formally Holodomor is not a Genocide as defined by the international law it is certainly a crime against humanity. By qualifying Holodomor as a Genocide (formally incorrectly) Ukraine draws world attention to the crime against humanity that is much better than position of Russia that does not publicly and equivocally renounce the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 including its Russian part as a crime. I think this position is reasonable and probably notable enough to be included in the article. I personally agree with it except the point that I do not see promotion of false statements by the Ukrainian Government as a good policy (although it is still probably better than the politics of Russian Government of covering the crime) Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

obsolete

As of 2010, Ukraine does not recognize the holodomor as a genocide. (Igny (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Boris Borisov article

A section on the "Denial of the Holodomor" page was added, inexplicably deleted, then readded to that page, I suspect in ignorance of the existence of this page. (I know my edit was in ignorance of this second page.) Now, I wonder if the section would be a better fit here as another example of the continuing academic debate over the size and extent of the famine (but not of its existence) and of the characterization of the famine as "genocide". Any objections to moving the section here instead? Rossami (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Chile

Chile has not recognized the Ukraine genocide. This information is incorrect. Only had been talks about a proposal on the matter which has not been approved. Rakela (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact I could only find a proposal. The best that I could find was that president Bachelet was favourable and some statement that Chile recognized it as "a criminal act by Stalin but not a genocide". The reference in the article (broken link, this is the working link: http://www.camara.cl/prensa/noticias_detalle.aspx?prmid=28589 ) is only to a proposal, there's no sign of approval on the website of the Chilean house of representatives. 84.222.238.12 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

POV problems

Very bizarre that someone without the proper credentials like Solzhenitsyn is cited in this article, while not a single Russian scholar is mentioned. The article is strongly POV in favor of Ukrainian nationalist-revisionist literature and the remarks of non-specialists of the topic like Snyder - attaching prominence to their work while neglecting specialists' works like Tauger and Wheatcroft, and leaving out Kondrashin entirely. One of the world's leading experts about the food crisis, V.Kondrashin, specifically says "В России нет специальных работ, посвященных анализу голода 1932-1933 гг. на Украине." - meaning that a consensus of Russian historians don't think that there was a specifically Ukrainian famine. So, then why is the Ukrainian nationalist word "Holodomor" used in this article when most scholarship doesn't use that word? Snyder, Rosefielde, and Naimark really belong in this article - all they do is repeat what someone else has said, as they have not done any work that is specifically about the food crisis. The section about "scholarly debate" should only be limited to those many scholars who have done their own research about the topic such as Kondrashin, Tauger, Wheatcroft, Kulchitsky, and even Conquest.75.51.166.118 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn credentials are soiled by his nationalism. The Holodomor as an artificial famine has been academically accepted worldwide. Russia as a successor state of the USSR naturally sees itself as vulnerable to claims of responsibility, so the Russian historians toady the state line. And YOU cannot delete other people's citations in favor of your own.--Galassi (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the work done about the topic. Tauger, for example, proved that famine resulted from genuinely poor harvests, contradicting earlier work about a "man-made" famine. I didn't praise Solzhenitsyn, but I questioned why he is mentioned in the article. The term "Golodomor" is a Ukrainian nationalist term that is not found in Russian scholarship. Your opinion about Russian historians is not very interesting - please provide a source that proves what you're saying. I can and will delete those sources that violate RS criteria: Snyder, Rosefielde, and Naimark are not experts on the famine. They have not published any scholarly article or book that is narrowly devoted to the food crisis the way Wheatcroft, Tauger, Kondrashin, and others have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.166.118 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is not ru-wiki, and the anglophone research is favored here. Snyder, Rosefielde, and Naimark are experts on genocide, and thay will stay as such.--Galassi (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Anglophone research is NOT favored here - all views have to be fairly represented. If Anglophone research is favored here as you say, how do you explain the use of Ukrainian nationalist term "Golodomor"? Why is Kulchitsky's Russian-language source[1] cited, but not Kondrashin - a leading expert of the famine? There is no rule that Russian-language sources cannot be used.

Snyder is an expert about Poland and 20th century Jewish history, but not about Russia. Snyder's research includes "The Causes of the Holocaust" and "The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic Cleansing, 1943”. He is not an expert on the famine, but only expresses his opinions about the work of experts. Rosefielde specializes in economic systems, not Russian history. He hasn't published any scholarly material specifically focusing on the famine. Naimark is not an expert on the famine. He has not published any scholarly material specifically focusing on the famine. We have many, many works of original research about the famine: Tauger, Wheatcroft, Kondrashin, Ivnitsky, etc. In a circumstance where there are so many secondary sources specifically about the famine, the opinions of non-specialists like Snyder, Rosefielde, etc carry no weight. 75.51.166.118 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Galassi, this is a sock of an indef banned user Jacob Peters. No point in getting drawn into a pointless discussion, just revert him. Volunteer Marek  23:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

comment by sock of Jacob Peters was removed My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No support in body for "natural disaster" so modified intro accordingly

Since no one including even the Russian government calls this merely a natural disaster, I have substituted for the words "natural disaster" a quote from the position of Duma that is cited in the article. Paavo273 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Rel User:Nikosgreencookie's substantial edit of the Ellman position

1. First, my thanks to NSGC for making CLEAR what Ellman's CONCLUSION was and also for format improvements. 2. Overall, though, except for E's conclusion, I think the former analysis was a reasonable statement of the source material. Moreover, I don't think the additional long quotes serve this article well. 'Tend to get the reader off track talking about other potential genocides when this article is supposed to be about the Holomodor Q. It's important to assume good faith, and I don't find the "distortion" or "game play[ing]" NSGC has alleged, other than perhaps a slight unintended distortion in the lack of a clear statement of E's conclusion. In fact I routinely find way worse on WP. I propose restoring the discussion to the way it was EXCEPT with NSGC's addition of Ellman's conclusion--MINUS the blow by blow analysis of Ellman's thought process. How would it be to move that extra, IMO extraneous, material here to talk, instead? Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

POV title

As it was discussed before, claims that Holodomor was not an ethnic genocide are not merginal (indeed they are close to mainstream) so using the word denial is inappropriate Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream? In the State Duma? How about Holodomor genocide dispute? Ostap 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "denial" is not good. "Controversy" is better than "dispute". This is not a specific Russia-Ukraine dispute. The opinions of historians on this subject are also divided.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support controversy. Ostap 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets change to controversy Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear God. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. Please read WP:CIVIL. Ostap 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right. Uncivil would be to say what I really think at this point. Merely expressing my amazement and awe in this manner is hardly uncivil. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You are clearly causing "an atmosphere of conflict and stress". If editing bothers you so much that you are harboring uncivil thoughts, perhaps some time away would do you good? Regards, Ostap 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's cheerful. No, all editing doesn't. I was quite happy till I saw this article.

And I have no intention of causing " an atmosphere of conflict and stress". I suspect that assuming saying "Dear God" causes such an atmosphere is precisely what does cause such an atmosphere. For substantiation I present - the above four comments. Cheers! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Spoken like a true wikilawyer. Battle on, friend. Ostap 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My Learned Friend, you forgot to wikilink "wikilawyer" as well. The weight of any legal statement on WP is directly proportional to the number of wikilinked policies/guidelines.. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My Bad. Ostap 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Title is still POV. "H-g controversy" does not represent the topic neutrally as it takes the position on the outcome of this controversy by calling the event as Holodomor-genocide. --Irpen 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" does not mean any outcome. It only means existence of different/opposite views on the subject. "Question" sounds ridiculous to me.Biophys (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most neutral title would be Holodomor-related controversies. It would include all disputable claims, such as Holodomor denial, "Holodomor genocide question" and whatever.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article title currently, Holodomor genocide question. In other words, The Question of him stopping beating his wife). I am not the one who has to justify the inclusion of this material under this title (WP:V#Burden of evidence, but I propose International law and the Holodomor, which I believe covers the current content. Anarchangel (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that International law and the Holodomor is better. Otherwise the info on recognizing Holodomor as a Crime against Humanity seem to be out of topic. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a similar debate as to whether the Nazis deliberately elected to kill the Jews of Europe. However that debate is stymied by anti-hate speech legislation in many countries. Is there actually enough of a debate to warrant this article? It seems that it is only Communist apologists who suggest that this was not genocide.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

whether the Nazis deliberately elected to kill the Jews of Europe - I'm not a native speaker - Please explain what do you mean? Was the Holocaust Collateral damage ?Xx234 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am a native speaker and am as befuddled as Xx234 as to what you are trying to suggest regarding the content of this article. What is the crux of this apparently 'intentionally elected' vs. 'collateral damage' whoopsie position? Your short comment is loaded with evidence of your holding very distinctive opinions which strike me as being bizarrely antithetical to each other. If you believe you have something of importance to bring to this article, please elaborate of what it is that you are postulating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly Debate?

Why is it that in the scholarly debate section every listed person but Tauger has the opinion that it was a deliberate genocide and Tauger's section is the only one with a list of criticisms against his not-genocide opinion? This article is structured towards one conclusion: that it was definitely a genocide, despite the fact that others, like Tauger, disagree, and disagree based on scholarly analysis. This makes the article biased and worth cleaning. I'd suggest putting counter-remarks in each scholars section, or else let Tauger's statements stand without sabotaging them in favor of the other opinion. 76.189.245.220 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

List of countries that recognize it as genocide

I've checked the reference purported to claim that my country, Belgium, recognizes it as a genocide and as expected found that the reference says the opposite. A quick look at the history of the page shows that the usual suspects (Svoboda members, Svoboda is a Ukrainian party that relies heavily on politization of the Holodomor) are quite active here, so please double-check these claims.B01010100 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Holodomor was a political crime, dissembling it was a Soviet policy the same like recognizing it as a Force majeure. Liars create anti-liars.Xx234 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove reliably sourced content. In fact, the document clearly states that Belgium recognises Holodomor as being genocide. Read references carefully before deleting content and leaving comments on article pages that state the antithesis of your contention. Unless you have documentation to demonstrate the opposite (that is, that Belgium has 'changed its mind and decided that the Holodomor was not intentional genocide'), don't edit in areas that you have evident WP:POV issues. Your removal of reliably sourced content is blatant tendentious editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No it does not, it says exactly the opposite. The answer the vice prime minister gives to the question is "To the best of my knowledge, the Belgian government has never recognized the famine of 1931-1932, also known by the Ukrainian term Holodomor, as genocide". He then goes on to explain that classifying the criminal nature of acts is in fact a task for the judicial and not the executive branch, which was what alerted me to the likely false nature of the information given in the first place. Though I don't know how separation of powers works in other countries so I haven't checked the other claims. Your comment on my talk page was also incorrect, a comment on an article's talk page does not have to abide by NPOV standards in order to assure the "neutral tone" of the encyclopedia. Please stop inserting this false information, that the articles concerning the current events in Ukraine have been turned into a big joke is one thing, but try to leave the Holodomor out of it.B01010100 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you self-revert before this issue is thoroughly examined and discussed here, on the talk page. This article falls under WP:ARBEE, and the article content should not be changed according to executive decisions by a single user. Thank you, in advance, for your understanding. I'm about to log off for the day as I have IRL commitments and won't have the opportunity to engage in a discussion until tomorrow. This will also allow for an opportunity for other editors to comment on your proposed removal of content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The editorial cycle is BRD, not BRRD. I'm not sure what thorough examination is required, the source (http://www.senate.be/www/?MIval=/Vragen/SVPrintNLFR&LEG=5&NR=9821&LANG=fr) clearly says the opposite of what is being claimed. If you don't understand French or Dutch, google translate does a fair job here. The document concerns a question asked in the senate, the senator stated as part of the question that the Belgium government recognized it as genocide but was corrected in the answer as that never having been true. Official declarations by the government are published in the "Belgisch staatsblad", a search of which on "Holodomor" got no results and on "genocide" and "Oekraine" got 2 which had nothing to do with the Holodomor. It also doesn't appear on the list published by the Ukrainian embassy in Canada http://canada.mfa.gov.ua/en/ukraine-%D1%81%D0%B0/holodomor-remembrance/holodomor-international-recognition Changing the content of an article by the executive decision of a single user is called an edit, and this one is fully in line with wikipedia's editorial cycle, your proposed self-revert would actually be breaking the editorial cycle. If it were merely unsourced I'd have a just put a tag there, but the source directly contradicts the claim. Sorry for being so blunt about this, it's not related to you, but even though it could have been a misreading of the source - thinking that the question is actually the answer - from previous experience with some editors active on this one who have been consistently pushing fake or misrepresented sources in the other Ukrainian threads that align with exactly the same political interests in Ukraine I've long run out of AGF on some of this. Which is also why I've long stopped bothering to contribute to it, but using a genocide for (seemingly) political point-scoring is just a little too over-the-top (again not saying you are doing so). Although I fully agree with you that I have a WP:POV issue, namely that the admins in their zeal to crush every Russian propagandist have left the door open in their backs for the Western propagandists to have free reign, even though they could just simply check the tell-tale signs against their manual https://edwardsnowden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf B01010100 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the cycle is BRD = you've made a bold deletion; I've reverted you; discussion takes place here on the article's talk page. I don't have the time to quibble at the moment as I should be focussed on a conference I'm involved in IRL right now. I can't twist your arm into reverting your bold removal of article content and am not interested in edit warring. Wikipedia is a long term project and is not a race to 'win' anything (particularly pertinent to content).

Your Edward Snowden allusion is irrelevant to the content of this article. I'm a little befuddled as to your statement pertaining to "... I've long run out of AGF..." in light of the fact that you are an inexperienced contributor (read as "newbie") in terms of your contributions according to your edit history. I'm a veteran editor who has a well grounded rationale for claiming the same. Nevertheless, I am prepared to allow for the benefit of the doubt in your favour until we've had the opportunity to discuss the matter civilly once I'm in a position to give you my undivided attention. Note, also, that I am not a sysop, nor do I have any agenda revolving around 'crushing Russian propagandists'. I think you are oversimplifying how NPOV editors work. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that the bold step was when the claim was put in, with a justified revert given that the source contradicts the claim. Not that it matters much, if you want to put it in again go ahead, but end of the day what matters is whether the source supports the claim - which in this case it not only doesn't but directly contradicts it. That's what makes this particular instance, in my view, a no-brainer.

The Snowden leak wasn't meant (and it's not just the Snowden leak) as a vague allusion but as an illustration of the basis of what has been a systemic problem in Ukraine threads. Namely that while the admins have shown a good handling of Russian propaganda, they are somehow under the illusion that there is no Western propaganda nor editors working to put it in, and thus by catching only one side of it making it lead to some seriously slanted articles. Newbie status in terms of number of contributions is irrelevant, specifically when I already explained why I stopped contributing to it long ago. Before this Ukraine thing I never bothered to make an account and was mostly working on mathematics articles. But knowing a thing or two about Ukraine almost the first edit I made the response went "An IP address! He must be a Russian propagandist. Look for any reason to ban him." So after noting the nature of that response I made an account. And after a bit more of this I just stopped bothering. In any case, number of contributions is not by itself an argument anyway. I want to again point out that I'm not saying you are doing this, I can't recall prior contact with you here so I don't know and am fully willing to allow AGF about you. However I do have enough prior experience with at least 2 other editors who I've noticed are active on this article, for one of which the Snowden manual isn't just an allusion but a direct manual of how he works, to put up a red flag on this. I never said you are an admin, or have an agenda, again I'm not saying anything about you here.B01010100 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Correction, I already had made an account years ago but never really used it until that barrage started when I had edited a Ukraine article.B01010100 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I never understood the concept of "countries recognizing a historical event A as some category B". Of course in dictatorships an opinion of the dictator is enforced to the whole population: if Imam Shamil was at some stage recognized by Stalin as a British spy then all the books that praised Shamil as a national hero were destroyed or put to Spetskhrans and Shamil-lionisers went to Gulags, where they joined the critics of Shamil when Stalin changed his mind and pronounced Shamil a tsarism-fighter. Democratic countries usually do not behave in such a manner. Some historians or politicians have some opinions, others might have opposite opinions. Holocost denial is probably a single exclusion to this attitude - in many countries of continental legal system such opinions can lead to legal troubles but even Armenian genocide in Turkey is a matter of public debate. The "list of countries recognizing Holodomor as genocide" is actually the list of countries there some officials (often local) at some event (e.g. opening a memorial, commemorating Holodomor victims, etc.) named the famine as a genocide. At most it shows that in those countries the notion of Holodomor being genocide is not completely freakish. It does not suggest that another official of the same country would argue that Holodomor was not a genocide (thus, Belgium is not a contradiction). If we rename the list to something more appropriate we would not confuse our readers. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The source given is not a couple of off-hand remarks made by officials, it is of a Q&A session in the senate to the government. The senator says as part of the question "Belgium is one of the countries that recognizes the Holodomor as a genocide", the government's response is "Belgium has never recognized the Holodomor as a genocide". If the list of countries recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide only means that some official personally may have considered it as such, and is to include at least one country where the government has refuted recognizing it as a genocide, then another source is still required. The senator asking the question in the source is not saying she considers it a genocide, but expressing her incorrect belief that the Belgium government has done so. Changing the list from "countries that recognize it as a genocide" to "countries in which at least one official has expressed a personal belief that it is a genocide" would make the list rather meaningless as I'm sure, especially if you include local officials, that this can be found true for practically all countries. It also fails a basic NPOV test since, to use an in extremis argument, if you have a country where every single official but one has said to not consider it genocide as well as the government having said not to recognize it as such, but there is one official that did say to consider it genocide it would make it in the list.B01010100 (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response. Having been editing on the fly, I should have listened to my instincts in that I didn't recall Belgium as recognising Holodomor a genocide (that is, as in an official position held by the government). The removal from the list was a valid one. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas Werth

Nicolas Werth has probably changed his opinion (The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. ed. by Donald Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, (Oxford; New York: Oxford UP, 2010), xiii+675 pages).[2]Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Considering that this is a book review, I'm wondering whether the author of the review hasn't misread Werth's evaluation. There's also an article by Werth (parts 1) + part 2 (translated into French) from at least the same period, if not later, as it cites both Timothy Snyder and Stanislav Kulchytsky from their works of 2010. The article in question would certainly suggest that, if Werth has/had changed his position, he changed it back very quickly.

Not having read the text in question, I unable to comment on what position Werth actually takes.

Have any other editors read it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Werth is French, so the quoted article is probably an original, not a translation. The article was published in "Vingtième Siècle, N° 121, janvier-mars 2014." 5 EuroXx236 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Case Study has been corrected in February 2015.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no point in my purchasing it as my French is far too weak to be able to comprehend it. I'm reticent to add any changes in his position without being able to cite check the work, so I'd have to leave this to another editor who can read French, but it does leave a question mark as to Werth's position as depicted in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Case Study [3] is quoted as a 2008 text, but it was corrected in February 2015, I don't know what was the correction.

The French text is available for free, I'm not sure if the copy is legal because the original article costs 5 Euro.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: I fully intended to try to compare the two versions after you'd brought this up, but I simply haven't found a moment to do so (well, it's going to take more than a moment!). I've added it to my 'to do' list and will see if I can muddle through at some point. It'll be interesting to see how much it's changed. I'll let you know once I've established the differences. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition of DPR position

I've removed content added regarding the DPR as being WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The content was originally added to the lead by Ottawakismet, and moved by Alex Bakharev querying whether it even has a place in the article.

The position of an unrecognised state — one that isn't even stable and is still essentially only functioning as a military state at that — is WP:UNDUE in an article discussing academic positions and the formal positions of recognised states. Frankly, it just looks like it's been tacked on arbitrarily because someone found a mention in The Economist. I fail to see that it adds anything of value other than dissent, and strikes me as being designed to do no credit to either the DPR or the subject of the article.

If anyone else sees it as being worth exploring, please feel free to make a case. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice example of Russian/Soviet ideology.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely undue (agree with Iryna), especially since the article in Economist is essentially about a very different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian Army political opinion, Russian embassy in Kiev

http://topwar.ru/19929-byl-li-golod-1932-1933-godov-genocidom.html Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

http://embrus.org.ua/ru/history_golod/view/909Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Both are essentially nationalist forum/blog sites. As to the calibre of the authors of the articles, I have no idea of which Александр Самсонов (Aleksandr Samsonov) wrote the article reproduced at topwar.ru. There is only one who has credentials as an historian, and he died in 1992. The article is dated 2012, so it at just someone writing under his name?

As for the other site, В. В. Кондрашин (Victor Kondrashin) - et. al - have been discussed thoroughly on the "Holodomor" talk pages (see this example) as not being reliable sources. He may have addressed this article as being a 'reply to Stanislav Kulchytsky' but, as far as I know, Kulchytsky has never responded as he doesn't take Kondrashin seriously as anything outside of being a politician with an agenda. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have quoted the two texts as a description of Russian state of minds, not as reliable sources.

Regarding Samsonov - if it's this journalist http://ru-an.info/author.php?rid=500 he may be interesting. The last sentence is crucial - the Holodomor was better than a peasant revolt. The article is supported by the majority of readers. I don't know what is the connection of the site to the Russian Army. Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The other text is presented by the Russian embassy, which makes it more or less official. Russian embassies don't support abstract free discussions.Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• First source is mostly not about genocide, but an outright holodomor denial - along the lines by Jeff Coplon: "Злобные антисоветские и антирусские идеи не были рождены на Украине. «Голодомор» выдумали ещё в ведомстве Геббельса во времена Третьего рейха. Опыт информационной войны германский нацистов был заимствован в среде украинских националистов – эмиграцией второй волны, которые в годы Второй мировой войны воевали на стороне гитлеровской Германии. Затем их поддержали британские и американские спецслужбы. Использование богатого наследства нацистов представителями западной «демократии» было вполне естественным для них явлением. Они также строят Новый Мировой порядок.". Second source only addresses the genocide question. I am not sure if they should be included here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holodomor genocide question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219113820/http://daccessdds.un.org:80/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/604/02/PDF/N0360402.pdf to http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/604/02/PDF/N0360402.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive returns 404. Replaced with active PDF download. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Naimark

The quoted phrase is available here https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cws/summary/v014/14.3.kramer_sub06.html, I don't know however if it's Naimark's or a summary by Sporluk.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, Xx236!. I'd be wary of using it as a direct quote, but Sporluk has presented a page number for the contention. Nonetheless, I'd be wary of using it as a direct quote until it can be confirmed. For the moment, I'm removing the quotation marks and presenting it as 'according to'. Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A question?

I believe that the article should present both POVs. Which academicians are against? Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really, per WP:WEIGHT.--Lute88 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why we also have the Denial of the Holodomor article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Kulchytsky

"Kulchytsky's views on Holodomor has been criticized by both Russian and Ukrainian historians. It was noted that his conclusions never changed, though argumentation has been continuously amended to support these conclusions. In addition, his argumentation, in particular, the concept that Ukrainian nationalism arised at the countryside, contradicts the mainstream directions of modern scholarly works."

This is a bit weasely. By who? So what if he is ctiticized? Everybody is. The countryside item is a total WP:COATRACK.--Lute88 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Well, they do say he is a manipulator. Formulate it yourself in whatever form it is acceptable for you and return to the article, before I take you to ANI. This is not the first time you immediately remove material I add if it can be considered even mildly critical to Ukraine. This is called POV pushing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mind the WP:GOODFAITH, please. You and I are from the same proverbial village. Russophone sources would tend to call him a manipulator and many other things, and it is expected. I'd be loath to quote them.--Lute88 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The two guys who discuss him in my reference are both mainstream, one is from Budapest, another one is from Kiev. In 2009, it was pretty common to discuss in Russian. Please, reformulate and re-add.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Miller mainstream? Regarding Miller's own views re Ukraine - http://echo.msk.ru/programs/korzun/1296194-echo/. They are pretty abhorrent. Miller is very close to the Kremlin.--Lute88 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding SK himself - I'm sure he overcompensates as an ex-commie, but his views on the subject are mainstream.--Lute88 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Section about views by this historian is very specific. It explains why he thinks that was a genocide. It tells: "In the fall of 1932, on orders from Moscow, government troops came to villages requisitioning grain to meet Stalin’s unrealistic quotas. At gunpoint they took away grain, even when peasants did not have enough for themselves. Those peasants who had no grain were deprived of other food stocks. Those who resisted were shot. Then a Jan. 22nd, 1933 directive from Stalin and Molotov sealed off Ukrainian borders to prevent famished peasants from escaping". This is fine.

On the other hand, it is entirely unclear what the "criticism" of K. was about (text above). Did these historians criticize his position because the underlying facts/event (government troops, etc.) did not take place, or because these facts do not constitute genocide? As written, this is simply a slander without explanation: a historian was criticized by unknown people for unknown reason. As written, this does not belong to the page - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My sentiment exactly. So I offered Yaroslav a chance to write a separate article on SK, there is one on ru-wiki already. SHould be easy to translate.--Lute88 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in writing an article about Kulchytsky (though it would be great to have a reference in the article why he should be here at all, why his opinion is of any interest, and why the quote is relevant). The reference I provided takes two mainstream historians, one Russian working in Budapest, and one Ukrainian, discussing essentially that the Holodomor topic has been highly politicized in Ukraine. in particular, both of them agree that Kulchytsky is a crook, who has predetermined conclusions and amends his argumentation when historians criticize it. i do not see why it is irrelevant for this article. Of course if Kulchytsky gets removed than the reference should be removed as well, but I do not know how relevant Kulchytsky is for the whole story.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

SK's presence is not that critical. The general historiographic consensus is so overwhelmingly FOR the genocide term, that one extra vote makes little diffference.--Lute88 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is no way to consider arguments by Kulchytsky as anything original. Kulchitsky took them from The Harvest of Sorrow that described in great detail all these facts and interpreted them as genocidea "democide"/mass murder. On the other hand, the person who is trying to criticize this line of arguments (I looked at the source) does not even try to refute these well known facts because he can't. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  My reading is not that they are for or against the genicide, they just say that the question became political, and many Ukrainian scholars, with Kulchytsky in front, started to make up the arguments in order to come to the known conclusion. (And many Russian scholars make up the arguments to come to the opposite conclusion).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, such questions are political and the answer is far from certain. No wonder because there are numerous alternative definitions of genocide (discussion). My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This is fine, I am not pushing for a certain answer, and I am definitely not advocating there was no genocide (nor I am advocating there was one). What I am saying is that there is a statement that Kulchytsky is not an cademic scolar, in a sense that he only cares about conclusions, but not on the methodology which leads to this conclusions. Therefore leaving his opinion in this article as an uncommented quote is POV. Removing it is ok with me. Saying that it is controversial or whatever is also ok with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem. Statements by almost all other historians on this page are empty-worded: "historian X believes this was/was not genocide". They should either be explained or removed. Section by Kulchitsky is almost the only one that explains why he thinks that was a genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not care about the others, they can be removed as far as I am concerned. Do you say it does not matter that Kulchytsky's view have been criticized in reliable sources, it does belong to the page and the criticism does not belong to the page?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I only said above that the arguments by Kulchitsky (they are actually not "his", but typical mainstream arguments) were very specific, and therefore the rebuttal must be also very specific, rather than simply telling that he is a bad historian, a claim that the quoted source does not really support I think. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. Sometimes people use flawed arguments and come to good conclusions, or conclusions supported by other people who do not generally support their argument. I am sure it would be possible to find an equivalent quote from someone who is not controvercial and replace Kulchitsky's quote. Or, alternatively, to supplement his quote by criticism. Leaving it intact, I think is misleading. (Well, the whole section actually reads as a coatrack, and from the quotes it is difficult to figure out who supports what, but for the time being I am not going to re-write the whole section or reorganize it in some way, this would require reading of some literature which currently I have no time for).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this whole "Scholarly debate" section does not serve the purpose: it suppose to briefly summarize the existing scholarly debate on the subject, rather than to provide a long list of opinions with rebuttals (and rebuttals to rebuttals), as it currently does. It should be rewritten and significantly reduced in size in the process. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Then we should try to give a two paragraph summary of pro- and contra- opinions, and delete the rest.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I can think about it and possibly change something later. One should be careful because we do not want to lose relevant info and present this objectively, per WP:NPOV.My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

In the US this is referred to as KNEE-JERK reaction, which is not worth an encyclopedic attention, IMO.--Lute88 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes, I'd suggest keeping Solzhenitzyn's opinion. It is quite nasty, but it is relevant and there is no need to hide his sentiments. Dorpater (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously his own opinion, not opinion by Russian government. Therefore, I removed it from the section. Where it belongs? To "scholarly debate" section? But we are talking about reducing this section, and he is obviously not a researcher on this subject. A lot of writers have opinion about it, but their view are significantly less relevant than views by scholars. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed your 'reintroduction' of Solzhenitsyn, Dorpater. Not only is he not a recognised expert on the subject, the reformulated wording by you was agonisingly heavy on the loaded language and WP:WEASEL. Do not use Wikipedia's voice as a surrogate for your own op-ed histrionics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think this belongs even to biography of Solzhenitsyn. My very best wishes (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna: ″Do not use Wikipedia's voice as a surrogate for your own op-ed histrionics″ is a clear case of a nasty personal assault. No, I don't have a stake here and alleging I might share Solzhenitsyn's views on this is highly offensive. What I see in your behaviour here is a heavy case of article ownership. Dorpater (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What a strange question? I explained this already just above: this would be an extremely long list of opinions if we start including views by non-scholars. It appears that the list of opinions by scholars is already too long and hardly readable (see discussion above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop making your own rules. There's no guideline that would provide that only scholars can be included! It's ironic how you start an article on Holodomor genocide QUESTION and then include exclusively the views that support one side while deleting every single notable author expressing the opposite view. This reduces the credibility of the whole article. Dorpater (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not start anything here. In fact, I did not edit this page for many years, but decided to check after looking at the ANI discussion. No one makes any rules. This is simply a typical cherry-picked opinion by non-expert which is clearly undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The importance of opinions by anyone who has an opinion and some form of 'celebrity' profile is zero to nil. This is an encyclopaedic resource, therefore the only RS are RS... and non-experts are not RS, just people with opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly debate section

How about gradually reducing the existing scholarly debate section as was suggested above? My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you mean in terms of the current structure of a list of scholars as sub-headers with a quote to 'summarise' their position, I'd definitely be in favour of a restructure. Such a restructure, however, needs to be planned carefully as it leaves the potential problem of losing the subtleties of arguments, as well as opening up the scope for POV-pushing bearing in mind the amount of information and articles out there that are not scholarly, just opinionated. As with other articles, it might be worth forming consensus as to who is deemed to be a major scholar, who is really part of 'the school of' after a major scholar, and who is an obvious political propagandist (that's not to say that the lines don't blur, which is what makes it a considerable challenge). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To avoid OR one needs review sources, such as that one, which summarize views by different scholars mentioned on this page. But I am sure there are other reviews which would do it differently. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To summarize content, one needs to understand what the consensus/majority view exists on the subject. There are several questions here:

1. Was it man-made (confiscations of grain, etc.) rather than result of poor harvest? The majority view is "yes". Only Tauger disagree or partly disagree.
2. Was it intentional (confiscations, preventing movement of population, etc. continued when Moscow definitely knew that hunger started)? This is something debated/studied in detail by Conquest and others, and the consensus answer seem to be "yes".
3. Was it directed against certain ethnic group(s), i.e. Ukrainians and possibly Kazakhs? This is the most controversial question and should be viewed/described in appropriate context. Stalin was known in Bolshevik party as an "expert" in ethnic groups ("nationalities"). He had a huge disagreement about this with Lenin known as a dispute about "autonomies" (how many rights national Soviet republics should have). His actual policies were so called "population transfer", i.e. ethnic cleansings against numerous ethic groups and also "divide and conquer" approach, i.e. unification of peoples who hate each other in the same "republic" (Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Karachay-Cherkessia, Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, etc.). There are also many other indications (should be described). For example, the infamous Soviet internal passports (with indicted ethnicity of the person) were introduced in the time of Holodomor, specifically to restrict movement of population based on their ethnicity. Given that, the answer to the question appears mostly as "yes", although there are different opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning #3, famine also occurred in Volga and Don areas at the same time, and they are populated by ethnic Russians. I think this was the main objection against the genocide classification.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is something well known to all these scholars (including Conquest) from the very beginning. Of course they write that Russian population also suffered and describe losses of population in all areas. But nevertheless, some of them tell that it was directed mostly against the Ukrainian population (the losses among the Ukrainian population were much higher). Obviously, Russians died as well, but who cared? Certainly not Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The lede of the article currently says (imo to the point) that there is currently no consensus outside of Ukraine on whether Holodomor was a henocide. There is no consensus exactly because considerable number of scholars doubt it was specifically directed againet ethnic Ukrainians. Obviously, some of them have no doubts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The opinions obviously differ (there is no consensus even what "genocide" means), however most agree there are ethnic issues involved, and they are important [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, those who published in this book agree, other do not. I think if we want to say smth like this in the article it should be "some agree", not "most agree".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Given complexity of the subject, I would rather left this part as it is right now. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced text from Tauger

@My very best wishes, Rjwilmsi, and Iryna Harpy: (the three latest editors). Compare removal, reinstantement and second removal. The stated reason for removal is that we have to use 3rd party sources when discussing Tauger. This is an implicit acknowledgement that the argument for removal has no relation to the only applicable policy on the issue: WP:PRIMARY. We use reliable secondary sources. Tauger's work in a peer-reviewed academic journal is a reliable academic secondary source. The section is called Tauger and critics, which is already POV-pushing in ruling out the very possibility of even partial support for Tauger's work and singling out Tauger as the only source in the whole section that has been criticized (which is plainly ridiculous—a blatant cherry-pick of Wheatcroft and Davies' disagreements with multiple scholars on all sides of the issue). But "Tauger and critics" means: what Tauger says and what some critics say, not what critics of Tauger say. More broadly, this is a WP:COATRACK edit that seems to be motivated by the user's desire (and edit-warring) to remove Tauger and other sources on another page. Diffs: 1, 2. Aside from getting rid of the sputnik source (but not doing the elementary minimum of providing a better one to improve the lead), the user's removal has no merit my opinion. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I self-reverted. This is not because I agree, but simply to save some time, given negative experience of similar discussions on other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Marginal theory?

This part
Quote: "The only dimension not included in Lemkin's analysis was the destruction of the 8,000,000 ethnic Ukrainians living on the eve of the genocide in the Russian Republic (RSFSR)" (found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question#Raphael_Lemkin )
looks rather suspicious with the only reference being the Ukrainian news site (in any way that is no academic peer-reviewed source). Seems like the marginal theory of the worst kind and I'm inclined to delete this piece of propaganda bullshit --RussianTrooper (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Er, Roman Serbyn is 'marginal'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly "Debate?"

To echo the above commentator, just from a logical perspective there's a fundamental disconnect between the introduction of this article, which promises an unresolved debate over whether the mass deaths were deliberate, for which "there is no international consensus among scholars," ... and the opinions of scholars listed. I would think that there should be consonance between these sections, so that either the introduction should reflect the apparent scholarly consensus or so that the scholar pool should be broadened.

Sections And Deeming

Name	Deliberate	Other
Raphael Lemkin	X
Yaroslav Bilinsky	X
James Mac	X
Stanislav Kulchytsky	X
Norman Naimark	X
Mark Tauger		X*
Steven Rosefielde	X
Timothy Snyder	X
Michael Ellman	X
Nicolas Werth	X
Other modern academics	X

Tauger's section, uniquely, is titled "Tauger and opponents," giving space for people who disagree.--199.111.208.221 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have confused the concept of 'scholarly debate' with creating WP:SYNTH in the form of tallying a poll of those 'for' and those 'against'. Which 'scholarly opinions' should it be expanded with? Are you acquainted with the scholarship surrounding the question? Feel free to bring new reliable sources to this talk page for discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that's a synthesis issue. So let's talk about the current state of the article: Right now, there are many ... frankly bad ... sections ... including some that are just short pull quotes, which technically is pretty contra to MOS:BODY, but we won't worry about that. There doesn't appear to be a lot of rhyme or reason to why certain authors are highlighted with a section ... almost as if someone just did a lexis nexis search and wanted to make a wiki-version of their results page. We also have a sentence suggesting that there is a scholarly debate on the question of whether or not the actions constituted a genocide.

Now, we say things like "Tauger's evidence, methodologies and conclusions in regard to the famine were criticized by Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft" - yet we do not mention that Davies and Wheatcroft still conclude that the event was not a genocide. We also do not note James Mace's equivocation on the genocide subject, see Bilinsky. You ask me to bring reliable sources to the talk page ... well, sure, if you'd like, but I don't see how that helps ... the issue here should be obvious. Nonetheless here's two off the bat:

• • Roman Serbyn and Bohdan Krawchenko, Famine in Ukraine, 1932-1933
  • Craig Whitney's Starving the Hands that Fed Them

Ta-da! This is easy, but stupid ... so I'm going to move on.

Broader from the fact that the sections are bad and probably too numerous, let's just focus on the intro statement. Could we perhaps agree that we could make it more accurate? For example, instead of merely saying "there is debate," could we note that majority - or even vast majority - of scholars of genocide consider the famine man-made? Tauger himself makes such a note! "Almost all studies of genocide include the 'man-made famine in Ukraine', as do Western and world civilisation and Russian history textbooks." (From article published in Europe-Asia Studies 58, no. 6 (Sep., 2006).

To sum up: as it stands I think the intro of the article implies more scholarly debate than there is, while consistent omissions in the body consistently act to downplay such a debate.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, Context and Condense Tags

This article is centrally on the "Holodomore genocide question," specifically the "debate." It is therefore imperative that both majority and minority views be substantively detailed but also given proportional weight.

Both of the following are true:

1. The vast majority of academics consider the famine to be a genocide.
   Tauger acknowledges this; we should too. "Almost all studies of genocide include the 'man-made famine in Ukraine', as do Western and world civilisation and Russian history textbooks." (From article published in Europe-Asia Studies 58, no. 6 (Sep., 2006).
2. There is still a sizable subset of academics who do not consider the famine to meet the definition of genocide, and using Tauger as a stand-in for this viewpoint doesn't make sense.
   The article mentions Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft as critics of Tauger, but it does not mention that they do not consider the famine to be a genocide. The article mentions James Mace's view ... but his view has been notably inconsistent through his articles, as Bilinsky points out.

So while we should do a better job of acknowledging the consensus, the minority position isn't adequately presented.

Additionally, context is necessary–the section split up does not make sense, and it's a poor way of organizing the article. The issue is not that the information in the sections is bad ... the issue is that we should incorporate it into an actual article rather than present it as a list. Ideally, we should address general reasons scholars have for deeming the famine a genocide / or not and include notable examples within that framework. This way, the article can substantively detail each view (rather than relying on an aggregation of quotations to do so) while also giving weight to the majority position.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)